all 1 comments

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A couple of caveats. For one, illegal street prostitution is of course going to be of a different character than legalized prostitution. For two, the fault lies in how little anybody seems to give a shit about child abuse and how horrible systems currently are for resolving it. Parents often go without punishment for the abuse, and the children are tossed around often abusive or neglectful foster parents. Many of them, or at least how it used to be, do so for profit and keep chucking around unsurprisingly unruly children they can't easily control.

Of more bizarre note is the silly hamfisted shoving of pornography into the problem. For which is only vaguely cited as "Schwartz et al 2007" for justification, likely from this document where the bulk of it seems to have been plagiarized. Except the paper in question doesn't support the comment, but rather is "Pimp subjugation of women and mind control". Unfortunately I could not actually locate the contents of the article, and google only returns some 6 or so results. Its singular use to verify that entire paragraph raises an eyebrow.

The dismissing note about boys in prostitution is also egregious. The problem remains that almost nobody has ever cared to study the subject because nobody cares about boys and men. What few do exist do so in effort to further dismiss them, and in fact the entire 2008 document much of this comment cannibalizes from doesn't mention boys at all. Most worryingly about this dismissal is the cited studies do not support it.

"Gender differences were found in the types, but not prevalence or magnitude, of childhood maltreatment and traumatic events experienced." - Gwadz et al; which further concludes "Further investigation of the impact of trauma on homeless males is needed."

Meanwhile Tyler, the study "The Effects of a High-Risk Environment on the Sexual Victimization of Homeless and Runaway Youth", does not actually compare like-for-like and with a tiny population of 311 homeless and runaways of course finds girls victimized more. It does not compare, for example, prostitutes for prostitutes. If prostitution were more a common choice of women, for example, of course you'd find lower victimization among men. But even more than that, it cites the bogus college rape statistic among many other bogus "studies" grossly inflating rape statistics. A rigorous trustworthy source it is not.

Back to the main bulk of the comment however, most worrying is the shell-game going on mixing studies about unwilling prostitution versus willing, or child abuse related prostitution. Using singular studies of single locations, such as SF in the 1980s, does not imply anything about modern populations nor concerns. In fact it cites old studies that don't match modern numbers, then new studies talking about something entirely different to bolster its claims. This entire comment is immensely deceitful in the manner in which it haphazardly presents research. In fact, it cites studies of small samples with some of the biggest estimates in the entire field. Even though the majority of them find far lower numbers, such as this one finding only 32% prevalence of sex abuse.

Does this imply the older findings are somehow false? No, but times and places can vary considerably. But there are also misreporting in the comment. Example, Widom and Kuhns (1996) found both neglect OR sexual abuse had a 2.54 and 2.58 odds ratio, not "28 times more likely". In fact those with the highest rates of prostitution were physically abused in the results section.

The bizarre misreporting of the actual studies I reviewed, as well as the discord compared with modern figures, makes me think the author of the comment is parroting from yet another unknown or set of unknown sources without having read the original documents. In doing so, creating exaggerated fictions when the real problem is bad enough as it is.

I'll conclude in quoting Widom and Kuhns. "The outcomes that other researchers have found and attributed to early childhood victimization experiences (particularly sexual abuse) may not be specifically associated with childhood victimization or sexual abuse in particular". Does that really sound like it supports OP's point?